[Tango-L] Choreography

[TangoDC.com]

Hi Jonathan,

I think you could say I'm going for a major in what you're talking 
about, and a minor in everything else. (I largely agree with Manuel's 
posts too.)

That said: I've seen first-hand, and been told by others, that playing 
with full-on choreography actually Can improve one's improv skills. I 
think that happens because these things overlap a lot more than we like 
to admit. But I'm dead-set on improving, and find that exposing that 
overlap is a great way to identify where I need to improvise more, if 
I'm honestly going to call it improvisation.

I.e., this critical writing has a big component of self-criticism. I'm 
not afraid to identify my shortcomings: I love it. It shows me exactly 
what to work on.

Festival and milonga performers, to generalize, use improv choreo almost 
exclusively. But most of them limit their choreography (in Trini's use 
of the word) to give things a clearer sense of form, and to minimize the 
chances of something going wrong. Dancers also have preferred 
vocabularies in performance, and that's part of this overlap I'm talking 
about. I've noticed that Alex Krebs, for instance, more heavily favors 
sacadas in performance than he does in his social dancing, which has a 
richer, wider vocab. But the payoff is that his performances foreground 
rhythm very crisply. I think it's a conscious, aesthetic decision. Other 
dancers have other preferences. Jaimes, lately, seems to favor walking, 
and it gives his performances a sharpness and edge. Nick Jones is an 
example of someone who seems to improvise his choreography (again, in 
Trini's usage), and his every movement, much more than other young 
performers. He's after a different result, so it's a different 
compromise going in. All this has an impact on how articulate, how 
clearly presented the (improvised) performance is, as a whole.

Also, I believe the visual impact of this dance isn't divorced from the 
feel of it. I used to think so, until I started watching videos of 
myself practicing. I saw all sorts of things going on; and then, paying 
attention to them in the dance, I found myself better able to fix minor 
problems. And we can tell, by eye, when a choreographed stage 
performance has great virtuosity (e.g., a rich and varied choreography), 
but No Soul, so there's obviously a value in studying the visual side of 
things.

But to get back on course... When we learn a sequence, or a new move, we 
often learn it as planned choreography. The challenge is to make it 
improvised, and as spontaneous as possible. Performers who teach such 
sequences, such as Fabian sometimes does, are teaching, I think, actual 
choreography in the strict sense of the term-- bits and pieces from 
their rehearsed dances. If our foundation in lead-follow and connection 
is solid enough, we can discover new things about that foundation by 
using these complex, pre-mapped tools to explore it. Then we can break 
apart the prefab sequence, and recombine its various parts, a la Cubist 
collage, to which tango dancing in general has been compared rather 
frequently. I extend that comparison to the music as well, and I think 
the likeness is why we're discussing choreography and syncopation at the 
same time.

In my private exchanges on this topic, and my conversations with 
friends, I've been seeing that followers have a different view of our 
dances than leaders do. Good followers pick up on our habits very well; 
they know which turns and elements we favor, which ones we don't, and 
how we tend to move. This is why something uncustomary (according to us 
leaders), even if led perfectly, can surprise them, and wake them up a 
little. My girlfriend knows full well that I don't improvise as much as 
I think I do; it may, at first, chafe me to hear her say it, but my mind 
is open enough to realize she's dead goddamn right.

Nor do I believe this is a case of two lovebirds slugging it out. I've 
heard the same thing from others, about other dancers, about me, about 
everyone. I suspect that this is why many women who also lead, if their 
partners' opinions are to be trusted, have much less predictable 
footwork than the majority of men-- even than excellent men. I suspect 
they're dancing the way they wish we were dancing. That's what I see in 
DC anyway, as the theme that unites all the good female leaders, despite 
their other differences.

My point being: Improv is a matter of degrees. Lots of gray in there. 
The line of dance is a shaping element. The music is. Our breathing is. 
I want to get in there with a zoom lens and see what else I can play 
with, for all my partners' benefit and for mine.

This kind of hair-splitting, I believe, is where progress comes from, 
after you've reached a certain level of proficiency. Case in point: 
We've been talking about things in terms of "steps," out of convenience. 
But what's a step? Extension, weight-shift, collection... All three of 
these may be shaped creatively. You can collect not only with a 
different speed, but with a changing speed, with dynamism. And this is 
also where the follower can be very present as a maker of the dance, 
without breaking the connection or disrupting the lead. I've posted on 
that before, and have been teaching it recently. For a lot of dancers, 
it's proving to be a wake-up call, as it was for me.

I'm not saying this stuff has to be "conscious." I'm saying it has to be 
there. I think there's a misunderstanding on this list about that... I 
realize that calculus is the branch of math that could describe what I'm 
getting at (if that helps anyone), but that's not how I feel it. I feel 
sculptural motion. Every single moment, including pauses (which have 
things going on), carved into space and time, engorged with presence. I 
rarely "think" in any normal way about what's going on when I'm on the 
dance-floor. But I reflect on it afterwards, and learn from myself, and 
come back to the dance with fewer rote habits. That's the empirical 
process informing my posts. And as a side-effect of my reflection, I now 
notice I've been dancing almost exclusively in close-embrace for about 
two weeks. I've been heading towards that, because it's easier to 
explore this kind of sculpting with it.

Anyhow, I feel this has turned into a great discussion. I hope everyone 
else is getting something out of it too. (And I apologize for not 
elaborating earlier, as I was doing in private exchanges. It was stupid, 
and just held things up.)

Jake Spatz
DC



Jonathan Thornton wrote:
> Jake,
>
> I think discussions of choreography are appropriate. I disagree that 
> all dancing is choreographed. I lean to the more formal definition of 
> the term. One reason for that is that if you make the definition too 
> broad it ends up a synonym for dance and you no longer have a term to 
> make a distinction.
>
> On the other hand I'm personally not interested in dance choreography. 
> I listen to music almost every single day. I hardly ever watch dance 
> performances except those incidental to workshops and milongas. But 
> choreography is clearly important to dance performance. And it's clear 
> that you are very deeply into performing which is a good thing but not 
> everyone dances for that reason.
>
> The issues that interest me in the dance are the very subtle but rich 
> nuances of shared felt music expression. These are not of interest to 
> everyone and there is no necessity for that.
>
> I once received a private email (and because of that I'm being very 
> circumspect though would welcome the writer to share with the list the 
> story) with an anecdote about a famous dancer telling the writer that 
> her first teacher had her just walk for the first year. But I can well 
> imagine that in that year of walking her appreciation and expression 
> of the music grew in depth. She later developed into a fine and moving 
> performer.
>
> I think it is a mistake, possibly a tragic mistake to emphasize 
> choreography to beginning dancers, especially American beginning 
> dancers who are unfamiliar with tango music. I think the emphasis 
> should be on the music, on the feeling, and walking and the embrace 
> and the very basics that allow a deeper appreciation for the felt 
> experience of dancing tango. All these things will serve very well 
> those who wish to go on to be performers.
>
> I would think it likely that we have all seen tango performances that 
> were highly skilled dances but lacked the feeling of tango. Well 
> trained dancers can be taught to dance tango moves in a short time. 
> For some reason sometimes they don't learn the feeling of tango and 
> that lack is visible in their performance.
>
> This is my preference, my opinion based on the experiences that I value.
>
> Jonathan Thornton
>
> On 7/25/06, *TangoDC.com* <spatz at tangodc.com 
> <mailto:spatz at tangodc.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Huck,
>
>     Thanks for keeping the ball in the air on these topics. You've really
>     moved things forward, I gotta hand it to you. (More below!)
>
>     Huck Kennedy wrote:
>     > "TangoDC.com" < spatz at tangoDC.com <mailto:spatz at tangoDC.com>>
>     writes:
>     >
>     >> Er, guys... ?
>     >>
>     >> What's the big deal about syncopation? It's a rather simple
>     >> affair of superimposed patterns...
>     >>
>     > Many dancers struggle with this concept from
>     > the musician's world.  If they don't already feel
>     > a bit chagrined about that, no doubt your
>     > dismissively informing them it's just "a rather
>     > simple affair" will hammer it home for them.
>     >
>     Wasn't it you who dismissed the topic in the act of raising it?
>     Maybe my
>     memory's off... Anyway, we've actually been having an informative
>     discussion about music, for once, while you were off doing something
>     else. You should join us next time, if the topic appeals to you. It's
>     just like chatting at a cocktail party, except there aren't any drunk
>     stupid people who butt in.
>     >> Hasn't everyone cultivated the habit of looking
>     >> up words and ideas they're not clear about?
>     >>
>     > Three points:  First of all, many dancers don't
>     > even realize they need to look up the word, because
>     > misusage in the dance world is so rife that they
>     > don't even suspect they're using the word wrong in
>     > the first place.  Heck, many instructors misuse it,
>     > so how can the students be blamed?  Secondly, even
>     > when they do become aware that there's a problem,
>     > without a musical background, the concept can be
>     > difficult to grasp from just reading a dictionary
>     > definition.
>     >
>     Wait a second here... I'm confused. Are you defending students'
>     right to
>     ignorance, or attacking teachers' lack of that right? For my part, I
>     haven't heard a teacher misuse the term "syncopation" yet,
>     although I've
>     heard a few dancers do so from time to time. On hearing a correction
>     start up, they all admit that they've got the term wrong. Perhaps you
>     know other people, but that's what I've seen.
>
>     But far more serious than these misuses, to me, is the fact that I
>     seldom hear anyone talking about this stuff, correct in their
>     particulars or not. We ought to be talking about it all the time.
>     On the
>     level Sebastian is, actually, if we're going to call tango an art
>     form.
>
>     If anyone out there is still Really confused, perhaps this page
>     can help...
>     http://www.lovemusiclovedance.com/syncopat.htm
>     >> Given that everyone reading this has Internet access: can't
>     >> you start today?
>     >>
>     > And thirdly, you can really be an insufferable
>     > pompous ass at times.  Maybe this plays real well
>     > in person, but at this point, it's already starting
>     > to wear a little thin in print.
>     >
>     Dude, every Aries is a pompous ass. I just go the extra mile.
>     >> As for your usage of "choreography," Trini, you're perfectly
>     correct.
>     >>
>     > Which is why we hear social tango dancers talking
>     > about their choreography all the time.  Not.  At least other
>     > than in a derogatory fashion.  As in a practica, "let's
>     > mix some variation into this so I can tell you're
>     > really following my lead and not just doing choreography."
>     >
>     >> The word, as a technical term in dance, has both the meaning
>     you've been using (general selection of elements) and the one more
>     commonly thought correct by some members of this list
>     (premeditated, rehearsed, and executed program). A quick look at
>     Answers.com <http://Answers.com> or Wikipedia will verify this,
>     >>
>     > It most certainly will not.  The first four entries
>     > of answers.com <http://answers.com>, to wit, American Heritage,
>     Houghton Mifflin,
>     > Word Tutor espindle, and WordNet, do not mention Trini's
>     > usage at all.  And even the fifth and last entry, Wikipedia,
>     > is a far stretch at best ("the art of making structures in
>     > which movement occurs"--that's vague enough that one could
>     > label almost anything "choreography," including building
>     > a basketball arena, and is thus a garbage definition).
>     >
>     Definition 1., a., at Answers.com <http://Answers.com>, for
>     "choreography," reads: "The art
>     of creating and arranging dances or ballets." Now, in Argentine tango,
>     excepting most _stage_ performance, that "creation" is allegedly
>     impromptu and improvised. That part of a dance which can be
>     written in
>     dance notation (before or after the dance) is commonly called
>     choreography by people who (a) can use dance notation, and (b) write
>     critically of dance. That social dancers almost never do either is
>     hardly a commandment forbidding that usage by me, Trini, or anyone
>     else
>     who wants it.
>
>     Furthermore, the _short_ bibliography at the end of the Wikipedia
>     entry
>     refers to a title called: "Choreography: A Basic Approach Using
>     Improvisation." This leads me to believe that there IS such a thing,
>     commonly known among dancers (at least beyond the tango community), as
>     "improvised choreography." It might even be worth reading. If
>     anyone has
>     it, please let me know how it is.
>     >> as will browsing just about any (gasp) book on dance as an art
>     form.
>     >>
>     > Do comic books count?
>     >
>     I really can't pin down whether you're being a snob or a philistine in
>     this comment-- care to set me on course? Or are you just razzing me
>     because I'm a sometime cartoonist? or because I've published
>     newspaper
>     reviews of comic books? HAVE you got a point? What are most comics
>     packed with, if not choreography?
>
>     Others interested in this tangent: Isn't Dave Sim's art in "Jaka's
>     Story" (Cerebus, vol. 5) quite good at capturing the iconic appeal of
>     dance? The reactions in those scenes of the onlooking peanut gallery
>     (rapture) may be comic relief, but they're insightfully in keeping
>     with
>     Paglia's observations on how fully and intensely audiences react to
>     dance as an art form.
>
>     If this is too heady for anyone out there, skip it. It won't be on
>     the test.
>     > Could you possibly be more of a condescending,
>     > annoying, sophomoric twit?  Why yes, I suppose you
>     > could go back to reciting fresh bon mots from Oscar
>     > Wilde with each posting.  Oh my God, what have I just
>     > done.
>     >
>     Sure. Let me start by attributing to myself your post, that used
>     "syncopation" to joke-butt those who have trouble understanding
>     it. That
>     was plenty condescending, you big teddy bear, you.
>     >> I really do advise everyone
>     >>
>     > Do you now, laddie?
>     >
>     >> to look this garbage up Before they start
>     >> pontificating about "respecting words" and all that.
>     >>
>     > Okay, part of that is my bad.  I'd already
>     > responded on the subject of choreography, and the sole
>     > purpose of my responding to Igor's posting about
>     > respecting words was to make the joke about syncopation
>     > (a subject previously fretted over in this forum several
>     > times in the past, but of course you had no way of
>     > knowing that); but on re-reading that post, I see now
>     > that it could easily be misconstrued (well, by the
>     > shallow reader, anyway) to look like I was actually
>     > pontificating ("Take that, Trini, you ignorant slut!")
>     > instead of just using Igor's line as a straight line
>     > with which to lead into my joke.
>     It was so funny too. But to clarify my "pontification" remark: I
>     wasn't
>     intending to target you. That, Huck, is why I quoted, er, IGOR's
>     diction.
>
>     As for the content of your prior post on choreography, here's an
>     excerpt, halved:
>
>     (HALF ONE): "... I think it's more realistic to think of the
>     allowable improvisational building blocks to be a bit more than a
>     single step."
>
>     I personally disagree with you on this. I believe every step (to
>     confine
>     ourselves to the step as a unit) is the result of several other
>     improvised (or not) factors, determining or describing its particular
>     qualities. And I believe that full improvisation requires the
>     dancers to
>     actively choose those qualities, crafting every single of them, so
>     that
>     the outcome step is uniquely carved into space. I believe this, I
>     strive
>     to do it in my dance, and I try to teach aspects of it to my students.
>
>     That is: I believe we must improvise More than our choreography.
>     We must
>     improvise our entire dance.
>
>     I'm curious about what others think, however, because I like the free
>     exchange of ideas, and I'm always open to rethinking and revision. I'm
>     also interested in non-improv choreography, but that seems to be
>     universally hated here, except by the few people who've actually tried
>     it. But silly me for imagining this is the place for open talk. I
>     should
>     really find a forum somewhere.
>
>     {HALF TWO): "If after determining it should be perfectly safe to
>     do so, a leader decides to lead a simple little right-turn giro in
>     place, should he be accused of doing choreography? I don't think so."
>
>     I absolutely do. I accuse myself of it all the time. This dance, in my
>     opinion, is best when it's rich and complex at every instant. And I'm
>     after the best, slowly though I plod. If you're not, that's perfectly
>     fine. Not everyone will be-- certainly not all of my students will be.
>     I'm trying to better understand to what extent "choreography" is okay
>     for such talents, and to what extent I ought to push them to
>     develop a
>     more profound capacity for art.
>
>     So far, most of them seem to want that capacity. They're hungry
>     for it.
>     I'll tell them, Huck, that you think it's okay if they stick to
>     routine,
>     but I can't guarantee they'll care for it much longer. Not with
>     such an
>     insufferable, pompous, condescending, annoying, sophomoric, oafish
>     twit
>     like me cheering them on.
>
>     Have a nice day,
>
>     Spatz
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tango-L mailing list
>     Tango-L at mit.edu <mailto:Tango-L at mit.edu>
>     http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/tango-l
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> "The tango can be debated, and we have debates over it,
> but it still encloses, as does all that which is truthful, a secret."  
> Jorge Luis Borges